Case law

Canell v. Oregon Department of Justice

811 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 11, 1993

Nor is a defendant who is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged constitutional violations stripped of that immunity merely because his conduct violates clearly settled state law. Davis v. … Qualified Immunity: Defendants may still escape liability for damages if they satisfy the test for qualified immunity.

Schlossberg v. Solesbee

844 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 18, 2012

was no clearly established Fourth Amendment right to the contents of electronic devices. … Qualified immunity protects government official from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Pelster Ex Rel. Boyer v. Walker

185 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2001

qualified immunity.” … Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiffs could establish a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the undisputed facts.

Plumb v. Prinslow

847 F. Supp. 1509 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity: Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff had no clearly established right to be released prior to the date his original sentence (i.e., the sentence pronounced by the … Defendants Faatz and John Does 3-10, members of the Board of Parole, are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Wright

432 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 1976

All federal defendants are entitled to dismissal or summary judgment based on the principle of qualified official immunity. The established and disputed facts are set forth first by way of background. … QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY The federal defendants contend, first, that the principles set forth in Barr v.

Samuelson v. Oregon State University

162 F. Supp. 3d 1123 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2016

Riley is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining if an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts look at two issues; (1) whether the plaintiff alleged facts establishing the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) “whether the right is clearly

C.O. v. Portland Public Schools

406 F. Supp. 2d 1157 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 22, 2005

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their' conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants’ request for qualified immunity, based on Pat Oman’s failure to plead violation of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, is denied.

Johnson v. Gibson

918 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 2013

Johnson concedes the City is immune from liability under the Act but argues that Defendants do not qualify as “owners” under the Act and, therefore, are not entitled to protection under the Act. … In Storm , the Supreme Court again recognized the lack of clearly established and consistent case law regarding the Remedy Clause identified in Smothers and specifically-rejected the absence of a distinction between rights

Leontiev v. Corbett Sch. Dist.

333 F. Supp. 3d 1054 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2018

"clearly established." … Moreover, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Price v. City of Sutherlin

945 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 2013

Excessive Force Claim Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis concerns whether the deputies had “fair warning” that the force used on a plaintiff was excessive. See Hope v.

Phillips v. Hust

338 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2004

Qualified Immunity 1. … Constitutional right was clearly established The next, sequential step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional right of access *1162 to the courts was “clearly established.” Id.

Myers v. United States

883 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 1995

established' as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. … We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected 'liberty' interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a 'clearly established’ con *534 stitutional right

Anderson v. Central Point School District No. 6

554 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1982

Plaintiff does agree that Groshong is entitled to a qualified good faith immunity if he can prove objective good faith. 2 Objective good faith requires proof that Groshong’s conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory … All others are only entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. Id.

Delaney v. Shobe

235 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 1964

Hatfield is the duly elected and qualified Governor of the State of Oregon and is a member of the Board of Control of that State; and the defendant Clarence. T. … Viewing plaintiff’s complaint in this posture and light, the nonliability of the respective defendants is clearly pointed up and established. a) As for the defendant Clarence T.

Tarhuni v. Holder

8 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

Thus, to avoid qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must have been ‘“clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that the Individual Capacity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in light of the fact that Plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a cognizable, “clearly established

Gambee v. Williams

971 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 1997

Qualified Immunity “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as *478 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established constitutional rights.

Arnsberg v. United States

549 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 1982

Moreover, defendants in a Bivens action have a qualified immunity defense available, based upon their good faith belief in the legality of their actions. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977); Butz v. … The special circumstances which warrant creation of the qualified personal immunity for agents acting in good faith do not apply to the government under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

Titus v. City of Prairie City

802 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2011

For purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the issue is whether the disclosure at issue is rises to the level of a constitutional violation which has been clearly established. … This balancing “makes the qualified immunity defense difficult to overcome, especially in light of the requirement that the substantive constitutional right be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

145 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2015

The Court then looked to the *1029 rest of the 1951 Acts in an effort to resolve the ambiguity and “to clearly establish the scope of the States’ more general consent to suit.” Id. at 306 , 110 S.Ct. 1868 . … The authority to waive immunity “must' be clearly expressed” in these sources. Id. (citation omitted).

Forter v. Geer

868 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 17, 2012

immunity on that claim because their conduct did not violate clearly established law, and to the extent defendants were named in their official capacity the state is entitled to sovereign immunity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields defendants from personal liability regarding any of the claims defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment addresses.